Tennessee schools dispute pits 'haves' against 'have-nots'

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I think this is where I got stuck. Is it a problem to tell the have nots to step their game up? Isn't the lack of belief that the have nots can achieve a roadblock to their success? I ask because we've seen time and again that, when provided with resources and attention, low performing students can and definitely do excel, as the issue is not a lack of intelligence.

If it was as easy as telling the "have nots" to step their game up, this would have been accomplished years ago and without a merger. The problem is access to resources and essentially re-socializing the students. Throwing "have nots" in an environment with more resources and telling them "DO BETTER," as though it was only their fault they weren't achieving, will have a horrendous outcome. The school district reps, staff and teachers need to prepare the students for the new environment that is much different than what they are accustomed to.

As for the bolded, many aspects of intelligence are not inherent. If intelligence is lower it is also a result of access to resources in the home, school, and other environments. If this is caught early enough, intelligence can be shaped. If it is not caught early enough, the average low performing student will be considered less intelligent, by many standards of intelligence, and will therefore not perfom well in excelled environments if there is nothing to buffer the previous lack of access to resources.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

While this issue is a given, it shouldn't be a factor in the decision-making process. Unless the haves students will be negatively impacted, academically, these parents need to get over themselves.

It has been a factor in the decision-making process for over a generation. That doesn't end just because some people are finally doing something about it.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Throwing "have nots" in an environment with more resources and telling them "DO BETTER," as though it was only their fault they weren't achieving, will have a horrendous outcome. The school district reps, staff and teachers need to prepare the students for the new environment that is much different than what they are accustomed to.

It also depends WHAT the resources are that they get. If they get a shiny computer lab, that's lovely and all, but if the lab is staffed by a teacher who's completely incapable of teaching computer usage from the very beginning, those "resources" don't do anything for the have-nots that are so supposedly lucky to get them.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It also depends WHAT the resources are that they get. If they get a shiny computer lab, that's lovely and all, but if the lab is staffed by a teacher who's completely incapable of teaching computer usage from the very beginning, those "resources" don't do anything for the have-nots that are so supposedly lucky to get them.

True!

This merger will be a huge change for everyone involved. There are pros and cons with every change. It's simply a matter of whether the pros outweigh the cons. I would love to think they do but I don't know all of the details.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If it was as easy as telling the "have nots" to step their game up, this would have been accomplished years ago and without a merger. The problem is access to resources and essentially re-socializing the students. Throwing "have nots" in an environment with more resources and telling them "DO BETTER," as though it was only their fault they weren't achieving, will have a horrendous outcome. The school district reps, staff and teachers need to prepare the students for the new environment that is much different than what they are accustomed to.

As for the bolded, many aspects of intelligence are not inherent. If intelligence is lower it is also a result of access to resources in the home, school, and other environments. If this is caught early enough, intelligence can be shaped. If it is not caught early enough, the average low performing student will be considered less intelligent, by many standards of intelligence, and will therefore not perfom well in excelled environments if there is nothing to buffer the previous lack of access to resources.

Of course. As part of the negotiations, the powers-that-be would have to do more than what has previously been done. This may mean additional course levels to give the have nots an opportunity to build the core knowledge and skills they may be missing, among other things.

I wasn't suggesting that the merger move forward without a game plan!

It has been a factor in the decision-making process for over a generation. That doesn't end just because some people are finally doing something about it.

Of course it has. However, this argument should not be the basis for legal intervention (nor is it a valid "con" imo).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Of course. As part of the negotiations, the powers-that-be would have to do more than what has previously been done. This may mean additional course levels to give the have nots an opportunity to build the core knowledge and skills they may be missing, among other things.

I wasn't suggesting that the merger move forward without a game plan!

LOL. You had me worried there for a second. I thought someone had stolen your username.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Of course it has. However, this argument should not be the basis for legal intervention (nor is it a valid "con" imo).

As always, that argument would be expressed differently using quality of education and other angles. Those who intentionally live in social class and racially homogenous environments rarely express it as such around those who potentially disagree with them.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. You had me worried there for a second. I thought someone had stolen your username.

Not at all. lol I was making assumptions about the quality of the strategy behind the potential merger that I wasn't communicating in my posts. I can be foolishly optimistic, so I am often disappointed by the ineptitude of individuals with power and authority.

As always, that argument would be expressed differently using quality of education and other angles. Those who intentionally live in social class and racially homogenous environments rarely express it as such around those who potentially disagree with them.

Exactly. My underlying point was that if all they can come up with is "we don't want THOSE kids here" they've lost already. It's also why I asked the, perhaps rhetorical, question about the legitimate "cons" of a merger.

My ignorance may be showing again, but I can't help but look at the relative success of charter schools and wonder WTH the problem is with the people making decisions that ultimately result in low performing schools. Of course, charter schools are a HUGE other topic, a discussion of which could be--and probably already is--its own thread.